All Blacks may skip 2015 RWC

2011-09-28 08:28

Wellington - The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) threatened to pull the All Blacks from the 2015 Rugby World Cup over a financial row with the sport's governing body on Wednesday - a move hooker Keven Mealamu said would be "devastating" for players.

NZRU chief Steve Tew said the unprecedented step would be "the very last port of call" but could not be ruled out, as current arrangements meant his organisation posted a loss every time the quadrennial tournament was held.

"That's obviously a last resort and our style is to be consultative, collaborative and to try to work with everybody to find a solution," Tew told Radio New Zealand when asked if the All Blacks could skip the next World Cup.

Tew said International Rugby Board (IRB) rules penalised major unions in World Cup years because their regular Test schedules were curtailed and teams were not allowed to promote their sponsors during the tournament.

He said this meant that competing at the 2011 World Cup was costing the NZRU more than NZ$13 million ($10.3 million), casting a shadow over New Zealand's participation in the 2015 tournament in England.

"It's putting pressure on the balance sheet and frankly, in the current environment, we just can't afford to run a World Cup-year loss, nor do we think it's necessary." he said.

Earlier, Tew told Britain's Guardian newspaper: "The prospects of us going to England in 2015 under the current model are very slim. We cannot continue to sign on for an event that costs us so much money."

Mealamu admitted that, if the threat was carried out, it was difficult to imagine a World Cup without the All Blacks and said New Zealand's withdrawal would not be well received in the rugby-mad nation.

"The country wouldn't been too happy about it, the same as the players... it'd be devastating for us as rugby players to know we couldn't make it to the next World Cup," he told reporters.

"It'd be devastating for our country and our rugby players here as well.

Tew told Radio NZ that the NZRU had been pushing the IRB for changes to the commercial arrangements for eight years and had gone public to try to ensure the issue was finalised by 2015.

"Now is not a bad time to make sure the issue is raised and considered, to give ourselves enough time to find a solution without having to go to any drastic measures," he said.

"We have the support of most of the major unions and a review is not only necessary but now, in our view, quite urgent."

Tew said the bulk of the NZRU's NZ$13 million shortfall came from television revenues and gate receipts lost because the annual Tri-Nations competition was shortened in World Cup years so it did not clash with the tournament.

He said other major unions faced similar problems, estimating their combined losses at 35-40 million pounds ($55-63 million).

Tew said solutions the IRB could consider were changing the World Cup date, to allow a full Tri-Nations schedule, or paying more money to participating unions.

He also said the IRB's World Cup sponsorship rules, designed to avoid any clash between team sponsors and the IRB's own corporate supporters, should be relaxed.

"In football, the FIFA model, there is room for both sets of sponsors to get some coverage during the World Cup period and we think that's something we should be looking at very seriously," he said.

A Rugby World Cup Ltd. spokesperson said the commercial model that applied to the tournament was being reviewed .

"We are committed to working in collaboration with our unions to ensure that the tournament continues to balance the strategic needs of our unions with the ability to provide the financial platform for the development of (the) sport," he said.

Comments

The only time they won it was in 1987, and SA were not invited. Back then SA had a fantastic Springbok team!!! World beaters. So the NZ win in 1987 was a watered down affair......

Bok Fan - 2011-09-28 09:10

New Zealand are broke. Huge economic crash coming their way....House market is in a huge bubble...

tHeOrAcLe - 2011-09-28 09:23

How is this for indirectly telling them to win this year or else....But how stupit putting added pressure on them now just before knock out strats...

tHeOrAcLe - 2011-09-28 09:25

stupid, starts

MaanDonkie - 2011-09-28 09:26

Its about time that someone stood up to the 57 old farts! The IRB has become an old boys club with very little significance

Kerr - 2011-09-28 09:26

well, if they pull out of 2015, this means thier next world cup will be 2019. That will then mean it would of been 32 years since they last won a world cup when they play in 2019... cause they sure are not going to win this one ;-) (choke choke...ahemmm.. does anyone have a lozenger??) :)

ObieKonobie - 2011-09-28 10:00

That'll teach the crooked IRB for awarding the tournament to some rainy island off the antarctic. Three days ago these clowns were crowing about how they would bid for another WC because they were doing so well, even with their little barns that were converted into rugby stadiums. Tournament should have gone to SA, far and away the best host nation for a global rugby tournament. IRB are a bunch of jokers.

Bellakanoose - 2011-09-28 10:28

OMG, politics in New Zealand Rugby? How will their economy cope? I smell a financial collapse here! Fruit pickers won't go to work, expats running their banks and heathcare will move back to SA! Even more student loans will remain unpaid because all the self-respecting kiwi youngsters (who don't fancy farming sheep and counting oranges) will immigrate to Brisbane and London... woman-battery and drunken-assault will... will probably just remain as high as it currently is, it can't get any worse... only the Zimbo's will be left, shame!

Razz-ma-Tazz - 2011-09-28 10:52

@Gazza69 Maybe you should asked your parents or elders why SA did not take part in the 1987 tounament. It not because they were not invited. Post the truth next time.

jontheb - 2011-09-28 11:02

They're actually protesting the same regulations that has put the Springbok on the sleeve of our new RWC jersey. They have a point - rugby is a professional sport and it's now about the money. If you want to argue against professionalism in sport - that's another debate altogether...

JimbOb - 2011-09-28 11:37

I think I can rewrite that song...
It's all about the money, money, money,
We just want more money, money, money,
We don't care about the world cup,
We wanna make a quick buck!
It's not about the winning, winning, winning,
It's all about more ching, cha-ching..

JimbOb - 2011-09-28 11:37

I think I can rewrite that song...
It's all about the money, money, money,
We just want more money, money, money,
We don't care about the world cup,
We wanna make a quick buck!
It's not about the winning, winning, winning,
It's all about more ching, cha-ching..

Lebo - 2011-09-28 11:41

Serves them right for stealing the right to host RWC2011 from SA! Now they can't handle it...

AMS-Dammer - 2011-09-28 11:46

ALREADY MAKING EXCUSES!
Cannot say I am surpirsed!

The Patriot - 2011-09-28 14:48

Razz, SA was not invited, and if your old enough to remember a rebel team named the Barbarians toured, did the Hakka and lost to Naas's team. A rather empty 1987 RWC title win dont you think?

Cuzin - 2011-09-28 15:50

@The Patriot. The New Zeeland rebels that played SA in 1986 was called the Cavaliers, not the Barbarians.

Sapientia - 2011-09-28 18:02

@Razz-ma-tazz; actually, SA helped to organise and arrange the first RWC in NZ in 1987 and were, in fact, invited to play. It's all on record, feel free to check it out. However, as apartheid was still in effect, although coming off the statute books, SA felt that their presence would be disruptive and divisive and so declined to participate, generously giving NZ a chance to at least win one world cup.

BOER - 2011-09-28 20:56

Always some sort of an excuse during every world cup. Whats up with these ASS BLACK RUGBY PLAYERS.

kosie - 2011-09-28 08:40

they never win it in any case or make it to the finals lately, so it doesn't really matter if they are there or not. LOL

BCC - 2011-09-28 08:49

The ABs will be at the 2015 RWC because they will want to be the first team to win it back to back.

JMsays - 2011-09-28 09:00

LOL, that will only happen if the SA team is abducted before the final 2011 and NZ wins by default.

Jack Turner - 2011-09-28 10:55

Well stated BCC,,,,Its wishfull thinking for the guys on this forum, to actually believe that The All Black's wont win this WC...They are the biggest blinding favourites to win this one. One thing of for certain. We dont stand a chance in hell of winning it..............

Kudubul - 2011-09-28 11:22

@Jack youre a bloody agent! a imperialist and a looser

Hannes van der Linde - 2011-09-28 11:41

Jack they've been favourites since the inception of the tournament. We all know what has happened since then, don't we?

theprodigy - 2011-09-28 08:53

Must be Paddy no-brian again, but this time his stupidity is actually threatening to exclude his precious little team from the WC, Its interesting though, that the All Blacks give up so easily when faced with a small financial challenge, maybe they think that if they win 2011 WC, it is unlikely that they will win back to back WC's (agree), so rather just boycott it & thereby remain the "best team" without having to prove it.Nothing new really, Paddy & his bum-chum refs have been for years, making sure that the All Blacks get preferential treatment.

Almaki - 2011-09-28 08:53

Funny how none of the other large unions have been complaining about this...

BCC - 2011-09-28 08:57

Wrong Almaki, Australia have exactly the same opinion. With NZ being a country of only 4 million the ABs rely heavily on overseas sponsorship. SA have something like 50 million population and can generate a lot more revenue and pay their players better. Thats why NZ is considered the greatest team in the world, because they continually battle against the odds.

Derek D - 2011-09-28 09:11

right BCCC, must cost a lot to recruit the top up and coming samoa/fiji/tonga island players. A lot of promises need to be fulfilled im sure.

BCC - 2011-09-28 09:14

As opposed to Zimbabwean players. Are you bleating about our players being too good again. Boo hoo to you. I would say that the ABs will go easy on you but they are unlikely to meet after you get knocked out very early AGAIN.

Really - 2011-09-28 09:21

There are only 4 mil tax payers in SA.

theprodigy - 2011-09-28 09:29

@ BBC you stand corrected, of the 50 million, only 12 million earn income & pay taxes, the rest are either living off state grants or are immigrants. Of the 10 million about 40% are not rugby supporters so that leaves you with about 6 million that fund the SARU as well as supporting the rest of the non-taxpaying 40 million people. Add to that, years of exclusion from WC's, politically appointed coach & quota systems that are enforced on the teams & you have a very difficult environment for a country to perform, & yet despite all these odds, the Springboks have won more world cups than New Zealand & can arguably be described as a Rugby nation that has beaten all odds. In contrast, New Zealand source 30 - 40 % of their players from Somoa, Fiji & Tonga without having to economically fund these populations, add to that the blatant preferential treatment that the IRB affords the All Blacks, from reffing, to rules, to hosting WC's, its clear that they have all the odds in their favor...

BCC - 2011-09-28 09:34

@the prod, take NZ's population of 4 million, take away the non tax payers, and the people that don't like rugby and there are about 1 million (your logic). The rest of your comment is pure rubbish and not worth commenting. Ask any rugby playing nation (outside of SA) and you will find that NZ have been and probably always will be considered the best.
Your two world cup wins were hollow victories. 95 the ABs were poisoned. 07 they didn't play NZ and therefore neither counts.

theprodigy - 2011-09-28 09:55

@ BBC, oh I see, so the 10 or so (30%) players with names like Mils Muliaina,Isaia Toeava, Richard Kahui,
Ma’a Nonu etc are 100 % New Zealanders. You can bleat (no pun intended) all you want to about how great you & your team are, but at the end of the day, results are what counts, World Cups NZ =1 (about 100 years ago when SA didn't play, so this wasn't a WC) & SA = 2 (NZ was represented at both of these) . If NZ doesn't win this one (everything is in their favor...again) then I suggest you shut your trap & stay the hell off our pages.

macrini - 2011-09-28 11:55

@ prodigy: you ignorant fool. Only four of the current squad were born overseas, 3 islanders and 1 white, and all moved here early in their lives and are thherefore the product of the NZ rugby system. By the way, Kahui is a Maori name knob.

mckenzierodney - 2011-09-28 12:48

according to BCC it doesn't count in 07 because Boks didn't play NZ. Well that takes care of your 1 win in 87 you didn't play the Boks so you on zero,zut nothing - right?

aus_beats_sa - 2011-09-28 14:28

@BCC - please don't waste time arguing with these ignorant South Africans. The intelligent ones, ie. those worth arguing with have left - ala the brain drain. These left overs are uneducated racist apartheid wielding scum. Seriously..

Almaki - 2011-09-28 14:35

@BCC: Are you seriously arguing that neither Springbok WC's count? And you give "Suzie poisoned them" as a reason? What will your excuse be if they choke again?

EJ - 2011-09-28 15:54

@theprodigy-you idiot, so based on your analogy the following players were poached from the Netherlands, England, Germany, Zimbabwe, Namibia.
Gio Aplon
Jaque Fourie,
Bryan Habana,
Ricky Januarie,
Juan de Jongh,
Jean de Villiers
Bjorn Basson,
Francois Hougaard,
Zane Kirchner,
Wynand Olivier
Fourie du Preez
Morne Steyn
Adrian Jacobs
Patrick Lambie
JP Pietersen
Butch James
Elton Jantjies
Ruan Pienaar
Francois Steyn
Willem Alberts, Alistair Hargreaves
Bismarck du Plessis,
Jannie du Plessis,
John Smit (capt)
Andries Bekker,
Schalk Burger
Francois Louw
Duane Vermeulen
Bakkies Botha
Dean Greyling
Werner Kruger
Victor Matfield
Flip van der Merwe
Chiliboy Ralepelle
Danie Rossouw
if there was a bigger concern for NZRU it would be to put a complain to the IRB for the extensive poaching by the SARU. No wonder we never see the likes of The Netherlands, Namibia and Zimbabwe do well in ruugby bebcause the SARU is too busy raiding talents in much poorer countries.
You should make your christmas list early because Im sure a geography book would be top of that list

Derek D - 2011-09-28 16:54

EJ, that's like saying Richard McCaw is Scottish?

EJ - 2011-09-28 17:17

obviously you missed the point.
Maybe a geography book should be mandatory rather than being on the christmas list.

Derek D - 2011-09-28 17:45

oh sorry, i thought you were trying to make a valid point....something along the lines of...if a player is born within the borders of a certain country he should be allowed to play for that country....as opposed to country recruiting players born in another country and then claiming to be a world force in said sport. I think England employ the same policy.

EJ - 2011-09-28 20:16

wow, so did you finally realized your first comment was invalid together with your buddy theprodigy? or does my list still stand as valid?

GHT - 2011-09-28 08:55

Ag please. Empty threats. The IRB are so crawled up NZRU's ass that they will never let that happen. Silly silly statement.

!!Vrystaat!! - 2011-09-28 11:04

They doing it so that they can get discount. or even for free. more profit for them.

Anneleen - 2011-09-28 08:56

...the Boks will not skip RWC 2015...go Bokke!

BCC - 2011-09-28 08:59

They won't want to miss 2015 because they will want redemption after being bundled out in the 1/4's for the second time.

Brenton - 2011-09-28 09:14

Lets meet back here 09/10/2011 and see if you are right, and if you not you will then predict defeat in the semis and after that the finals - the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day". If you are wrong on all occasions we probably won't hear from you again unless there is some negative comment you can muster in your small brain.

larry.swartz - 2011-09-28 12:45

@BCC: man, right to the point: win this first and talk then!
it is and have always been all the NZ bragging which causes them to loose. people like you put so much extra pressure on the players that they just can't help to choke.
I see you try to be very clever with % etc. that means NOTHING!! get the win first!
we don't expect that the Boks will win every year, but at least they have some wins to mention. the AB's still has to play a team this year that is in the same league!! we will see what happens then.. good luck, they will need it!

Cuzin - 2011-09-28 16:11

@BCC. No, we're coming back in 2015 to make it 3-in-a-row WC titles.

Alan - 2011-09-28 08:58

Geez - they suffer the fate that all the other major unions do, so what makes them think they are so special? If they dont participate, they mustnt whine when somebody else gets crowned as legitimate champions.

Danny D - 2011-09-28 11:36

All Bok supporters are a bunch of morons without understanding rugby. Your loyalty clout your judgement, that is why your comments are centred surounding chokers. Why havent the bokke won the world cup in 2003. Also chokers i guess.

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:09

@Danny D, choking is when you're the favourite and you don't pull through. I don't think the Boks were considered favourites then, neither were they ranked number 1.

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:11

And please don't generalize like that. Not all Bok supporters necessarily agree with each other's opinions, so you can't say we're all morons

JDemons - 2011-09-28 22:51

@ Danny D totally right.....Nearly as soon as the WC is over and NZ doesn't win it, in a matter of months they're back with a number one world ranking and hold on to the spot for the next four years. Yup we choke, but the more saffas (and the rest of the world) make a point of it keeps the All Blacks in the rugby publics eye, as chokers yes, but the mystery keeps going and that will overshadow any WC win the boks or any other country has (with the exception of 95, SA together as one, I'm happy for you all about that!). Want proof, read the posts on this website about how the AB's choke, thought winning the cup was more important than what other teams are doing but instead South Africans (at least on this website) like to wallow in how the AB's choke at WC's. I've come across articles on this website that have nothing to do with NZ rugby but read the comments, somehow saffas end up talking about how the AB;s choke and BCC, Maori, Cheif Kok have't started anything, crazy! As soon as you all get over the fascination with the AB;s choking, you maybe able to properly celerbrate the great players you have! Great day to all ;-)

Grey B - 2011-09-28 09:00

Sort julle K@k uit

Ulrich - 2011-09-28 09:01

I'm a proud bok supporter but those wishing for the exclusion of the All Blacks clearly see them as a threat. If you read Tew's comments again and realise that he is actually speaking on behalf of all Tier 1 nations who lose money (in the case of the All Blacks - this time around, it is 6.7 Million pounds or around 13 million NZD) due to the IRB's pathetic sponsorship rules during the tournament.
Therefore we can only assume that the Springboks and all other significant rugby brands also take a blow. Only difference being SARU is run by morons and won't realise until they are bankrupt.

Zuljin01 - 2011-09-28 09:04

One way of making sure, you don't choke I guess....

Brigitte - 2011-09-28 09:05

Maybe NZ should've thought about the cost of hosting a world cup before stealing the tournament. They wanted it, now they can pay for it. So stop crying!

BCC - 2011-09-28 09:12

Its not the hosting of the tournament einstein its the lack of sponsorship and touring test matches. Wake up bozo.

tHeOrAcLe - 2011-09-28 09:31

who wants to tour that country anyway

BCC - 2011-09-28 09:36

@ the A hole, every rugby playing nation wants to tour NZ, is the answer to your question.

Clark Kent - 2011-09-28 09:13

Great to see a country with Balls. New Zealand speaks ,and already the IRFU are re looking at their commercial Model . Great to see our Anzac brothers Australia also support our opinion. The proteas havent worked out what is going on yet, and it doesnt matter to them really because the Rhand is only Banana republic currency they will take what is ever given to them.

ChrisKhoza - 2011-09-28 09:37

@Clark Kent, you raised a good point but spoiled it at the end by insulting S.A. That was totally uncalled for.

theprodigy - 2011-09-28 09:37

Vaak Kent, go play on ur own countries web site blogs, that is, if it has any.

Buffalo - 2011-09-28 09:50

I thought that you went away, smell little thing.

Buffalo - 2011-09-28 09:58

Sorry typo: `smelly' little thing.

AA - 2011-09-28 21:43

It appears to me that the NZ rugby union do not know have financial management or budgeting skills. If you know that it will cost X amount extra to keep your team in a world cup year you budget for that. For example, if in four years your earn 10 million Kiwi dollars and in those four years it will cost you 12 million if you send your team to the world cup you are over 2 million Kiwi dollars. Then you figure out where to cut costs or find the extra 2 million. They have four years between tournaments to save and prepare for that. Obviously there are people in the NZRU who are earning too much for what they do and they should trim the fat. It sounds to me that they are simply being greedy. Perhaps they need to import some South African CA's to teach them basic accounting, because this is really accounting 101.
No one is bigger than the game and New Zealand’s boycott will hurt their rugby far more than it will the IRB. There are millions of Rugby supporters worldwide that will continue to play and support the game as well as watch the World Cup regardless if the All Blacks are there or not. If they want to act like spoilt little children then they must be treated as such and banned from the following tournament if they boycott 2015. The pre Madonna attitude of the All Blacks is sickening.

brok3news - 2011-09-28 23:33

Without SA Sanzar will make chump change in money terms. Fact

fishycraig - 2011-09-28 09:17

Look, it makes perfect business sense. They know that they won't be getting any returns on their investments. ;)

sqc - 2011-09-28 09:18

All missing the point: IRB declare the income statement and balance sheet of the RWC and lets see how the massive profits are really disbursed, then we can make informative comments.

mursebul - 2011-09-28 10:59

I agree, it is after all a professional sport that has to like any other business make money to spend money on a variety of projects. The sponsors are there for a reason, what would the Boks do if they could not advertise ABSA or Castle on their outfits, more frigtening, what would the sponsors react and what would the financial losses be?

ChrisKhoza - 2011-09-28 09:24

Wow, the NZRU has raised a legitimate point, instead of addressing the point they are raising we turn a blind eye on it and start all sorts of "insults". Wouldn't it be civil if our comments were based on addressing the point NZRU is raising?

AA - 2011-09-28 22:22

No Chris, it is simple accounting. There are teams that make their way to world cup of small budgets but are there the love of the game. NZRU need to learn how to manage their money better. They make huge amounts over the years preceeding the world cup. In account there is a term called reserves. This is where to put money aside each year for future expenses, for example the World Cup. It is simple accounting.
Why are they making a loss in a world cup year, perhaps their accounts need to be on public display to see where all the money is going. I bet the administrators are not starving thats for sure.

FJ2 - 2011-09-28 09:25

The Boks will be bundled out ... they wont make the semi's ... or even the quarters ... Samoa will thump the Boks ...
Don't you SA All Black fans think that you're trying to hard? Real Kiwi's do respect the Springboks. You are getting shown up by your own stupidity. Go read what Sean Fitzpatrick has to say about playing against SA, and shut your traps. I think that, when the good Lord gave all you SA Kiwis teeth, a lot of bloody good arses were spoiled.
No World Cup would be a real one without either one of the All Blacks, South Africa or Australia.

Clark Kent - 2011-09-28 09:35

Its only because Pistol Vandipstick tried to bite his ear off. Sean always thought the Boks were the dirtiest rugby players in the world closely followed by the French.Sean loved to bait them with smart comments he was to bright for them. The big fatties would then try to knock his block off ,and give away penalties

Clark Kent - 2011-09-28 09:53

FJ2
There has already been a World Cup without South Africa,and it was a success too. I agree with you though that they could never have one without the number 1 rated team in the world year after year after year the might All Blacks would make no sense at all

mike mason - 2011-09-28 09:56

@Clark Kunt..i hope for All Kiwis that the ABs win the world cup,cos if they Dont there will Groot Kak in NZ..The embrassment will be too much for the Fans and Players...the only Good Thing about NZ is the Rugby and Sheep,other than that theres Nothing Good about NZ..

Kevin - 2011-09-28 10:36

clarke kent- The same way you think you are Superman . The same way the AB's are not real World Champs . Dream all you want but South Africa and Australia and England are the only ones who won when all the big boys were playing. Again the AB's are going to dream about what they could have done. The whole of New Zealand will claim food poisoning or a bad ref. It is called choking

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:30

@mike mason - have you even been to NZ? It may feel like it's isolated from the rest of the world, but it's a beautiful and peaceful little island (or two). What's the point of dissing a country like that?

jpcronje - 2011-09-28 09:27

It will then be 8 RWC tournaments without winning the Cup

Free_At_Last - 2011-09-28 09:39

I am no fan of the All Blacks, but I am with Tew on this one...the IRB makes a lot of money from the World Cup and yet the rugby unions are given "peanuts". Truth be told unions that make the IRB to generate huge revenues should be paid a huge lumpsum for partyicipating in the world cup.

Lucky Strike - 2011-09-28 09:47

If everyone is at the RWC for almost two months, I wonder whom they will play to be able to display their sponsors brands?
That really is shooting yourself in the foot Mr. Tew!!!

KG - 2011-09-28 09:49

@ Urlich..good on you mate for actually reading the article..it will be a massive blow to rugby..and it's not the All Blacks seeking "special treatment" come on! it will also have a massive impact on Australian rugby amongst others..
I'm an All Blacks supporter and New Zealander, and from what I get from SOME of the Springbok supporters on this site is pretty sad-I have massive respect from the Springboks, as they are a fierce rival and play some great rugby..all the choker comments are tiring, but I get the feeling you view us as just as big rugby rivals too and it's out of fear more than insult..so I'm going to take the 'choker' tag as a compliment :) thanks! and enjoy the games!

poorwhite - 2011-09-28 10:02

KG, I support your sentiments...us SA supporters get hacked off by comments by Clark kent etc....
SA supporters in general have massive respect for the AB's, undoubtedly the best and most consistent team in the world.
Winning the WC is generally luck of the draw and minimizing injuries.
It is also great for a country to win their home WC. I do believe it would have been great to see a AB vs Boks final....maybe the semi should be classed as such as I dont believe any NH nation deserves to be in a final.

michaelp..It's not about the NZRU MAKING money, read the article again..and it's not just NZ..again, read the article..Tew says "other major unions.." for all you know..South Africa could be included in this?

jake.nell - 2011-09-28 09:58

We are not making our Billions not our millions whinny whinny whin.... poor baby

BeeEmBee - 2011-09-28 10:03

Oh please, this is just a publicity stunt. If they didn't play they would spend the rest of eternity moaning about how they would've won it if they'd been playing.

Danny D - 2011-09-28 11:52

@BeeEmBee:- you have displayed your low IQ your dumb twit.

KG - 2011-09-28 10:07

@poorwhite THANK YOU :) you're one of the first (but not only, all you other lovely South Africans) positive posters I've read..to be honest some of our fellow Kiwis and South Africans give us a bad name. At the end of the day, rugby is just a game. I have the courage to say that I respect South Africa as a great rugby nation and I would never call them 'cheats' or 'chokers' ..sure, we haven't performed consistently in World Cups..but we are only ONE behind you heavy weights up there! ;)
I like that some of you posters are still sportsmanlike and respectful, it gives me hope for rugby and it's fans! enjoy the games @poorwhite :)

poorwhite - 2011-09-28 10:35

KG, for me it's all about the sport....have respect for every team. If we really need to insult, then how about the SA Cricket team choking???? Ask any SA cricketer about having a choking tag and he will hit you with his cricket bat. It is disrespectful to Sportsmen.
I try very hard to ignore negative comments BUT sometimes just have to have a go at CK, etc. These guys are just out to troll,stir the pot etc.
I have just finished watching Georgia v Romania...great hard game.
May the best team win!

Ulrich - 2011-09-28 10:44

Most South Africans (apart from your local pub's crew) have great respect for the All Blacks. A lot of people throw the choker tag out of fear, you are right. A great man has once said something along the lines of "Great men always encounter violent opposition" well... something like that anyway. Tells you something about New Zealand as a rugby playing nation. :)

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:40

Any true rugby fan will respect the All Blacks, who punch above their weight higher than any other nation. Of course I want the Boks to retain the cup, but if they don't, it would be good for the game to see the much deserving AB's finally win it!
PS- thumbs up if you're a real respecter of the game, thumbs down if you're a whinger (see what I did there?!)

Anton - 2011-09-28 10:18

A pre-emptive Heimlich manoeuvre...

Fred - 2011-09-28 10:35

If they don't go to the wc ban the arrogant bastards from all future tournaments, they either support the IRB or are booted out permanently, nobody is indispensable.

Greg - 2011-09-28 10:40

Sod the IRB. Let's have a breakaway world cup in SA and get SA Breweries to sponsor (and make profits that IRB would have made).
Seems we are getting into that F1 situation where Eccleston has too much power or in Football where FIFA have to much power.

Clive - 2011-09-28 10:47

Yeah! And the tooth fairy may come and steal my dentures!

AndV - 2011-09-28 10:48

Too late to cry? Who did their summs for them before tendering for the tournament?

!!Vrystaat!! - 2011-09-28 11:00

"a loss every time the quadrennial tournament was held." - At Least the got 1 win (althought not in context, but it is fun)

Antonie - 2011-09-28 11:15

That will be so sad for World Rugby!!!

Jakes - 2011-09-28 11:18

So they are threatening to pull out of RWC 2015 because they loose money while they can't advertise their sponsorship's. OK, so if they pull out of the RWC who will they play during that time in order for them to get sponsorship and ticket money, seeing as most of the other teams will be at the RWC ????????

Travis - 2011-09-28 11:26

I have great sympathy for the the NZRU. It is coming on the back of a massive economic crunch that has hurt, as well as some natural disasters which have added huge financial strain to NZRU. Funny how this happens to every team hosting this type of tournament...ICC, FIFA, IRB...greedy dictatorial mafia. I have absolute respect for the AB's, and although I support the Bokke 100%, a RWC without the AB's would be a total farce, and I do not want it. I want our team to win against the best, and that means teams like the AB's, Aussies, England etc. Lets hope this is the start of some real changes in the IRB - if they are prepared to listen.

Damien - 2011-09-28 11:45

NZRU Only have themselves to blame with a backward mentality, and not following the general trends of other major teams in terms of how they run their sponsorship and marketing. For instance all the other teams have sponsors logos on their playing kit thus allowing the brand to be associated with the team and therefore a bigger, more long term deal. For instance the Springboks have ABSA however when they play in the Northern Hemisphere Barclays Bank will appear on the Jersey as its more direct to the UK audience (makes sense) they also have other sub-sponsors BMW-SA and South African Breweries, and whats always impressed me is that they the only national side that advertises for 2 charity's 46664(Nelson Mandela) and Chris Burger/ Petro Jackson Fund. not to mention they initiated the STAR( Stand Together Against Racism) campaign a few seasons ago ! If New Zealand were true world leaders of the game they would be at the very forefront of this matter !

EJ - 2011-09-28 16:03

you need an extra pair of glasses. This article has to do with the commericial sponsorships DURING a world cup tournament, not on rugby tours.

Damien - 2011-09-29 13:03

EJ clearly you just as short sited as the NZRU ..... One should have enough generated enough money from sponsorship's, other endorsements and warm-up games in order to cover the shortfall ! No other Sport organisation/governing body, in the world allows for unofficial commercial sponsorship's during a "world cup tournament" !

Good Advice - 2011-09-28 12:03

I'd have to agree. If there's a better way of doing things why not get the IRB to commit. Everyone will benefit. The timing is just odd. Why make the statement now and not before the WC started?? Did they not do their homework?? Also, threats don't go very far. Remember, money talks and NZ doesn't form a big part of that. The Northern Hem. generates twice what the Southern Hem. can....
Maybe if SANZAR stands together which looks as if it never crossed Tew's mind. Is he just arrogant, really dumb, panicking because figures are not looking as good as originally anticipated or are they just really frustrated.
NZ and their Rugby's great but will by no means concern others if they pitch up for th 2015 WC. A pity but not the end.

Cape-Coloured - 2011-09-28 12:34

The bokke will not win the World Cup. It is our world cup. They went to NZ as amateurs and will return as LOSERS. Viva All Blacks Viva.

What I find most hillarious is that you saffas keep saying the all blacks are chokers when ur beloved proteas keep choking in major cricket tournaments. Atleast the AB's have won a world cup b4 and will prob win this year as well when my beloved wallabies do to the boks that the aussie cricket team did to u in 1999 and 2007... ROFLMAO... muahahahahaha

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:55

A bit of a contradiction bleating about Aus beating SA, but then Aus losing to NZ! That's pretty funny

aus_beats_sa - 2011-09-28 13:09

Pooh-bear.. I love ABSA - Anybody But South Africa

bonny - 2011-09-28 13:27

But we are not talking cricket here...we are discussing rugby..you know,the game for real men..

CliffB - 2011-09-30 02:27

aus_beats_sa : So the win in 95 & 07 were not in the world cup , thanks for the input SHEEP SHAGGER !!!

aus_beats_sa - 2011-09-28 12:50

@Ullrich Good point man.. wish most of the people in SA had ur intelligence
PS. Oops, sorry, wrong country, intelligence doesn't make a damn diff here.. u need to be BEE compliant :)

Pooh-Bear - 2011-09-28 12:51

A rugby WC without the All Blacks would just not be the same!

Zion - 2011-09-28 13:56

Lets hope we can get a more rational comment instead of the utter bulldust. while it makes the AB's choke it sure makes me kots.

Barry Edwards - 2011-09-28 14:21

Is is actually not a bad idea to have them out in 2015. I think we have already had enough of the holier than thou, cheating hosts off this years RWC. The only thing they can offer is the inevitable choke in the knock out stages.

Clark Kent - 2011-09-29 01:21

@ Barry Edwards .You are one sour sick puppy either you werent breast fed as a child or your dad kiddie fiddled with you. Normally the English South Africans are the more intelligent ones you have blown that theory out of the water quite convincingly

Barry Edwards - 2011-09-29 06:20

@Clark Kent. I see. Now you want to trade personal insults. Your attempt to insult me only reflects on your character.

100%RSA - 2011-09-28 14:34

it may be better - they (AB's) cheat anyway! besides - their one and only world cup win was when the Boks were not even playing in the tournament

Raeez - 2011-09-28 14:46

Then they wont be able to defend their Trophy!?!?! MXM

wozlocksley - 2011-09-28 14:53

@kg - please dont judge all saffas by what you read on this sight. there are a heap of saffas out there that have a huge amount of respect for the all blacks. every saffa knows how dominant the all blacks have been from the mid to late nineties till present day, regardless of what they might say. but having said that, the springboks have been almost equally dominant throughout history and they are the one team at this tournament
that the abs are concerned about. graham henry was spot on after the 3n when he said that the boks would undoubtedly be the abs biggest opposition.

Malcop - 2011-09-28 15:39

This certainly flies in the face of equality in sport. The South Africans should have a full go at them. We need more money and more blacks.

Craig - 2011-09-28 15:43

Tew u tool! There is no way that administrators will make this call at the expense of a rugger mad public. They will loose more than 13 mil if they tried. Go bluff some other fools.

RandomDude - 2011-09-29 06:57

I sure hope not .. Pains me to say this but it won't be the same without the wankers

Owentjie - 2011-09-29 21:50

Does anyone know how many world cup games have been played in wet conditions in NZ ?